Watch both of the nutrition documentaries below:
Super Size Me (Spurlock, 2004) https://vimeo.com1206788157
Fed Up (Soechtig & Gothic, 2014) https://vimeo.com/146456623
In a 1 page write-up. make at least three connections between Chapter 11 (Nutrition Fads and Fallacies) and these listed documentaries.
The old common law rule of “The demise of nemo dat quod non habet” that a person cannot convey a greater title than that person already has and a person holding a licence cannot convey the superior title of a lease. This old comman law rule had been followed for many years, until the House of Lords decision in Bruton. The House of Lords in Bruton held that someone with no interest in land can grant a lease provided that the exclusive possession is given in the agreement. I will explain and critically evaluate the House of Lords decision in the followings. House of Lords Decision The House of Lords took the opposite view with the Court of Appeal and held that the agreement between the Trust and Mr.Bruton was a lease. I will explain the decision below. Applying Street v Mountford The House of Lord decision in Street had been strictly applied. According to Street, the agreement between the Trust and Mr.Bruton could be a lease/ tenancy if the three elements of 1) exclusive possession; 2) term and 3) rent are satisfied. The agreement permitted Mr.Bruton to occupy a flat in the block on a short-term basis for a weekly sum of ?18. The elements of term and rent are thus satisfied. Whether Bruton had exclusive possession Whether the requirement in Street can be satisfied depends on whether Mr.Bruton had exclusive possession. Although the agreement expressively referred it as a licence, it is irrelevant. Lord Hoffmann said that the language used, such as licence, is irrelevant. It is the true construction that identifies it as a lease. Exclusive possession is a question of law that depends on the characteristic of the terms agreed. Lord Hoffmann said that the Trust plainly gave Mr.Bruton a right to exclusive possession and there was no suggestion on shared possession.” Effect of the reservation clause Although the Trust reserved limited right of entry for the purpose of inspection and repair, still exclusive possession was given to Mr. Bruton. Lord Hoffmann used the case of Westminster City Council  as reference .In Westminster City, the only rights which it reserved were for itself and the council to enter at certain times for limited purposes. He further relied on the judgment of Lord Templeman in Street, and deduced that such an express reservation “only further reinforced the entitlement of Mr. Bruton to exclusive possession.”>GET ANSWER